Cassell Renovations😔
Does anyone know anything about it. Mofo whit been talking since 2017, yes TWENTY SEVENTEEN. Still nothing. My understanding was that everything has been directed into football that could have been put towards that, but I’m sure someone knows more. Mike most likely won’t even be coaching when they are completed atp…
66 Replies
1y
Mike has some of the worst NIL to deal with in the acc.
(In response to this post by IB4TECH)
1y
That's what the post is saying with "NIL". Not sure how publicly it was announced, but Whit has told many people that the Cassel plans were essentially scrapped to support the NIL fund when NIL became a thing. It's our only way to compete. Obviously, football takes the huge majority of that.
(In response to this post by SC_Hokie)
1y
You just proved my point. Mike has terrible NIL to deal with. Some of the worst in the acc…..
(In response to this post by SkoHokies)
2
2hhoop3
1y
was viewed as the opposite of JW. They thought he would build a fund raising operation and press the flesh to broaden the donor base. While some numbers have shown an uptick, the reality is fundraising operations have likely been jumpstarted by more university involvement when people realized how bad the football trainwreck was and some are worried the overall operation may be weaker now than when Whit arrived and that is before looking at the other department operating areas and their performance. There seems to be quite a few issues boiling just below the surface and a continued meltdown in football is not going to help matters.
(In response to this post by SkoHokies)
1y
definitely in order, esp. within the football admin. 4-8 or 8-4, Pry needs at a minimum, 5 asst. changes, and some experienced co-ordinators to take over. A shake-up of an embedded complacent dept. often helps to instigate real change.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
1y
(In response to this post by SC_Hokie)
1y
record is closer to reality with this football staff !
(In response to this post by NokieHokie)
K
KCHokie2
1y
** Edited by KCHokie2 at 9/21/2024, 8:25:25 PM
(In response to this post by NokieHokie)
1y
All it's going to take is re-directing funds from all sports to make this a mediocre ACC team that can win 8 games at its peak
The type of school the SEC can only dream of adding
(In response to this post by NokieHokie)
1y
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
It’s what drives conference realignment. As much as you have a woody for college basketball, it doesn’t matter in the multi-billion dollar sports industry. But sure, maybe we should spend money, get a better coach and improve our basketball program.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
There's not a conference in the country who looks at a mediocre football program like VT and thinks that is attractive
VT football got the same results when funding it much less than what it is currently getting...so why are we spending more for the same results?
Women's basketball, softball, track and field, wrestling and even baseball have all shown when you invest in them, they produce results
There were only 2 schools with worse records in the Big Ten last season than Rutgers, and VT can't even clear them when taking resources from other programs
The Big Ten and SEC do not want VT...sorry bout it
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
With all due respect, not at the level of football
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
departments”
They are wealthy because of football and therefore able to invest in basketball and other sports. But you crapping on football investments just shows your ignorance.
Top 10 Schools for Revenues:
1. Ohio State
2. Texas
3. Alabama
4. Michigan
5. Georgia
6. LSU
7. Texas A&M
8. Florida
9.Penn State
10. Oklahoma
All football schools. Some have good basketball programs but ALL have football pedigree that drives revenue. Also, none are in the ACC. Gotta get in the P2 to get that revenue. And those conferences have massive tv deals because of football. Good basketball conferences, sure — but it’s all been built on football.
If you can’t acknowledge that, you’re hopeless. If we get our revenues up, we can invest more in baseball, women’s basketball, softball, etc. But football is the driver. We all know this.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
utterly irrelevant. Even the revenue generated by basketball is irrelevant compared to football. The landscape has changed. You have to invest to have any chance of competing in football. We retained every one of our desirable football players last year. That’s NIL.
I’m only, this coaching staff stinks, but this team would be even worse if we didn’t retain Drones, Tuten, etc.
You’re missing the big picture. You think making investments in the near term in baseball or whatever will pay a return. But what matters is the next tv contract for the ACC — that’s what funds all of this. If the product in football sucks, so will the tv revenue.
If there is conference expansion, we want to be selected. Granted, that’s about geography, not results. See Rutgers to the Big 10.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
The product currently sucks even with an investment that is taking from other sports
You're very close to actually getting it...
There's a reason why a school like Rutgers, Maryland, etc are attractive to the Big Ten despite being horrible in football and it's precisely the reason VT isn't as attractive
(And it's the same reason why it's difficult to get people to come to Blacksburg in the first place)
So you're pouring money into a football program, not getting results and still won't get the conference invite you covet.
If you're not going to get into a new conference, you might as well be good at something.
VT has won ACC Championships in men's and women's basketball, men's and women's track and field, baseball and softball all in the last 5 years.
VT football hasn't been relevant for over a decade. They are recruiting players in high school who were born after VTs last ACC Championship.
Football has always dominated the expense column and always will. That's not at question here...
But every year we are told there needs to be more resources for football. And it is given. And then they lose. Then they need more resources. And they get it. And they lose.
Then they need a new coaching staff. Then they finish last place in the ACC. Then they need more funds. They don't have funds, so they direct NIL funds away from other sports to football...and then we get to lose to Rutgers, a bottom feeder in the conference we are so desperate to get into
All of that would be fine, except the same mouth-breathers who say we need to pour more and more into football then come over to this message board and b*tch and moan about why the basketball team can't get recruits to commit or stay in Blacksburg.
This would be like robbing someone and then wondering why they're poor.
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
1y
with each passing week.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
Obviously we need to make BETTER investments in football but that is where they must be.
Otherwise, we’re just investing in sports that cost money but don’t make money. Football is the financial driver and revenue source. The other sports aren’t.
Your plan is fine if the goal is just to be good at some fringe sports but isn’t to be competitive in the long term with the big boys.
Personally, i don’t care one way or the other. But when you complain about football investments and suggest the money should be spent on other sports, I think it just shows you don’t understand the long term financial drivers.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
And redirecting resources from the only other revenue sport to football
If you want to tank the non-revs to watch football barely make a bowl game, we can go back and forth on whether that's a good decision
But tanking the other revenue sport so we can lose to Rutgers is not a good decision, full stop
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
1y
Try to find think about revenue streams 10 years from now, not winning in softball now.
With regard to basketball as a rev sport — yes, it does generate more than it spends — but is a mere fraction of the importance of football with regard to generating the revenues to run the athletic department.
It’s like Coke saying they can’t pull funds from Smart Water to invest in red can Coke. Which is the bigger driver of their profits? Coke, not Smart Water. Same with football and basketball.
If we don’t figure out football, the rest is moot. Again, you’re fixating on football results today. You should try to take a longer term view. That’s what the admin is doing and every admin around the country.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
When in reality it's between 1/3 and 1/4
That's definitely nowhere close to the Smart Water/Coke correlation you're trying to make
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
1y
85/13 = 6.5…
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
I was illustrating a point, not suggesting the %of profits were identical to the Coke corporation.
But football is the revenue driver…clearly. So that’s where Vt should invest.
You were like an equipment manager at Toledo or something and love basketball. I get it. But it isn’t going to move the needle for us in terms of increasing the athletic budget and size of the pie compared to football.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
But their operating budget for basketball is almost 1.5x the size of VT
And somehow they bring in $14 million more in revenue
Wonder how that could be...
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
1y
Are basketball brands. We have no discernible basketball brand. We do, however, have a football brand.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
The brand getting memed on the internet for yeeting the football 25 yards out of the back of the end zone?
Or the football brand from 2 coaches and 20 years ago?
Touting a football brand from 2010 or before feels to these recruits the same way people in the mid-30s felt about banners from the 1980s when they attended VT...I love VT and I couldn't tell you a single thing about VT football in the 1980s, what makes you think a similar comparison will play with recruits who were toddlers or didn't exist the last time VT was relevant?
You began this discussion about conference affiliation...I clearly proved that you didn't need to be good at football to get into the Big Ten (Maryland and Rutgers)
So then you pivoted to it being solely a financial decision. I point out that UVA, who has been terrible at football since Bill Clinton was President manages to turn more profit than VT despite spending the exact same amount of football but way more in other sports.
So now you wanna pivot back to some mysterious "brand" that hasn't been true about Virginia Tech for 2 decades.
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
1y
Did USC have a football brand before Lincoln Riley arrived? YES. A brand isn’t the same thing as current performance.
Seriously, you can’t be this obtuse. You’re purposely misunderstanding just to argue, right?
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
With 11 National titles and 37 conference championships?
That's what you're comparing to VT?
USC even won a conference championship in 2017...VT hasn't done so since 2010.
They won their division and played in the conference championship 4 times since VT last won theirs...they've also had 5 seasons winning 10+ games since VT last won an ACC Championship
The VT brand is not the USC brand...this is a very dumb argument
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
1y
Stop making exact comparisons and try to understand the broader point.
I’m not saying VT’s football brand is the same as USC. I’m suggesting that current success is not the same thing as a brand.
Miami is a football brand. Nebraska is a football brand.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
That isn't VT. That will never be VT.
And it will continue to be VT for all non-football sports for as long as VT sinks more and more of the pie into football trying to chase something it cannot catch
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
1y
What do people think of when they think about VT? Hint: it ain’t basketball or softball or soccer.
What we’re chasing is more revenue to eventually fund the other sports. That is first and foremost going to depend on conference affiliation and tv contracts.
You just can’t seem to get passed your focus championships to realize this is about MONEY.
But I’m done trying to help you. You’re either too thick to understand or willfully misunderstanding.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
Other schools that just so happen to not only be in the same region, not only the same conference, but the same state who put more of their pie into basketball and returns more of a profit for the university than VT
There is no rebuttal for that. You do not have to take money from men's basketball to make money...that's very simply put a lazy narrative
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
1y
at VT. They do at UVA. They won a natty a few years ago. That’s their brand.
Are you really comparing VT basketball to UVA?
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
I thought this was a "MONEY" thing only?
I thought you were done with the conversation? You announced you were leaving...a sure sign you're making good points
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
1y
You’re just arguing to argue.
As soon as I mention that UVA is a basketball school (i.e., it’s their brand, history, culture) and therefore not a good comparison to VT, you changed the subject.
They have a built in advantage with regard to basketball. Their brand and history.
VT isn’t a basketball school. It never will be. You’re the one who always points out all the inherent disadvantages of VT (usually as excuses for the coaching staff and to explain our mediocrity). If you really believe that, why would you want to spend more money on a program that can’t ever be great? Particularly when it isn’t the primary driver of revenue?
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
Their geographic location and the money they put into the program. VT can't overcome the location, but they also can't do that for football either. So if you're going to pick a sport where you CAN outspend your opponents to put you on equal footing it is much more likely to be done in basketball than football...
Always, welcome back to the discussion! I guess whatever was so pressing that you needed to announce to strangers you were leaving wasn't so pressing afterall
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
1y
Look at virtually all the top revenue schools. How many are “basketball schools?”
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
1y
bottles? Maybe 6-6? doable 5-7 likely W/O some internal changes.
What is needed immediately? 1) Major staff meetings and 13 mirrors
2) Players only meetings
3) Open discussions among both groups about any NON-FOOTBALL
RELATED areas that need addressing.
Will this happen? I hope so.
(In response to this post by hokeyhokie)
At this point I'd be happy if they just washed the roof.
(In response to this post by SC_Hokie)
small budget wise - i'd like to see the interlocked VT's at midcourt again
add hokiestone on the court level walls on the baselines /in front of students
and remove the building graphics from the court (sorry Hokie20)
bummed the cassell renovation isn't happening any time soon
** Edited by kingofcassell at 9/20/2024, 9:48:51 AM
(In response to this post by SC_Hokie)
At least the seats are new and the court is fancy. ;)
I expect plans are delayed for another 3-5 years unless someone makes a heck of a donation? Like other posters have said, NIL is the focus now. As for construction projects at Tech, they seem to always run 1-2 years behind schedule to begin with even when they have the funding.
(In response to this post by SC_Hokie)
1y
The baseline is the correct color.
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
And remove the building silhouettes.
(In response to this post by WildTurkE)
R
RJHokie
1y
Significant facilities improvements like the Cassell, which would approximate $100 million to do as originally planned, aren’t in vogue right now. Plus they never received and don’t anticipate receiving the major donation that was critical to the commencement of the project.
NIL seems to be the emphasis now and the uncertainty of how conference realignment and the resolution of House v NCAA matter aren’t helping matters either.
(In response to this post by SC_Hokie)
2
2hhoop3
1y
the storm that is brewing in the business model of collegiate athletics. Major capital improvements are going to be a risky proposition that COULD impact the ability to fund everyday business depending on the resolution of lawsuits and that is BEFORE the potential revenue impacts of conference realignment and media rights. The ability to win games on the field will likely be significantly impacted by off the field operations in fundraising and financial management.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
R
RJHokie
1y
It’s a different ball game now.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
1y
What happens to funds previously donated to this project? Mine barely make a dent but was excited about the vision.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
R
RJHokie
1y
projects. I’m sure they have a few pieces of the original plan that will be done.
(In response to this post by Hokiestock)
1y
able to still have its cake and eat it too regardless of the fallout of the House vs. NCAA matter. As the number of cancelled capital athletic projects start to pile up at VT, I would think Hokie fans could decide to dig up the old debate on just how close VT was to becoming a member of a P2 confernce (aka the SEC) and what role (if any) VT played to prevent it from coming to fruition.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
R
RJHokie
1y
of the proposed Cassell endeavor. The “join the SEC” debate will always be a point of discussion.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
light on and what impact (if any) on achieving the desire goal. At least I am assuming the desire goal for these projects is to improve things for the people attending events in Cassell, specific athletic programs, and/or both.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
